They can record you, but you not them.

Louis Frobe was on his way to the movies one day, and was pulled over for speeding when he wasn't.   He decided to record his conversation with the police officer to protect his innocents.  Little did he know that he was in Lindenhurst Illinois, a town not far from the Wisconsin Boarder, but worlds away in the standards of liberty.   Louis Frobe lamented:

"I'm just an ordinary citizen. I was on my way to the movies, and all of a sudden I'm facing a felony and 15 years in prison"

 The Charges were later dropped...  This brave citizen decided this law was so ridiculous, that he would challenge it in Federal Court on the basis of its constitutionality.   Frobe states quite eloquently,

"They had audio and they had video of me, but I'm not allowed to do it to them?"

The Attorney General's office argues that there's no constitutional standing.   I hope the lawyers representing Frobe will read this, because I'll give you the best constitutional standing right here, right now, and it is inarguable.   The 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Just as Louis said;  The officer was recording audio of Mr. Frobe, but denied Louis Frobe the ability of recording audio of the officer.   This is a denial of equal protection of the laws, and is indeed unconstitutional if words still have meanings.  I strongly urge the lawyers for Frobe to concentrate more on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, as it has been one of the only clauses to repeatedly win in the US Supreme Court, regardless of how illiterate they've become.

MSNBC Peanut Gallery speaks volumes

I stray from stories of the depressingly sad and outrageous, to a good story that's simply surrounded by idiots.   MSNBC reported yesterday that crime rates have been dropping for the last 20 years.  This is a positive story, I didn't need the author to mention gun rights in order for me to feel this was good news, it's MSNBC so of course, guns are never the correct answer.   But look at this chart of the change in gun laws and how it coincides with a reduction of crime:

I am not an expert but I would certainly claim that expanded gun rights have some evidence of contributing to a reduction in property crime, and violent crime.   The Peanut Gallery comment makers at MSNBC of course can't accept this.   They are what I cal Mad-Libs, which is short for Raving Mad Liberals.  Let's read some of their nonsense:
From spg64-1292127

Lizzie,
An increase in legal gun ownership nearly always leads to an increase in illegal gun ownership!

What spg64-xxxxxxx doesn't understand is that tough gun laws ALWAYS increase illegal gun ownership, but not the other way around.  when you take something that is a right, and restrict it, many will hold onto their guns illegally.   This does not make them bad people, it simply means they are defending their rights through passive, rational actions of non-disclosure.  spg64 implies all illegal guns are used by murderers, thieves, rapists and drug dealers, and this simply is not the case.

Toasty McGrath refers to gun owners as the "Murder Lobby":

Man, look how quickly the Murder Lobby jumped on this report to try to credit this with gun ownership. I suspect the NRA saw the headline and sent out a couple of mass emails...

Uneducated reader Shnike writes:

More guns equals less crime does it? I guess that's why the West was such a peaceful, crime-free utopia during the colonization of this country?

Shnike obviously didn't realize the most violent city in the west was Dodge City, with a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000.     Which pales in comparison with Gun-free Chicago's 15.7 per 100,000.

but it doesn't matter how many facts you throw at these people... it doesn't even matter that that they have opinions.   Owning Firearms in America is a right, and no bed-wetting, narcissistic, gun-hater can change it, and it makes them furious!

The real scary part about their opinions is that they are a reflection of their own attitudes... they are people who know they can't handle the responsibility of owning a gun, they would shoot the first person that slightly angers them... so they project that irrational behavior onto everyone else, because that's what they would do.  

Illinois begins addressing Police torture issues

The sad thing about Police torture is that it has happened many times, and continues to happen.  An age old question of, "who will police the police?" begins to have new meaning as the Illinois Supreme Court addresses what I interpret as police torture, and framing of individuals to get convictions.

Wrice is serving a 100-year-sentence. He is one of dozens of men, almost all of them young and black, who have claimed since the 1970s that Burge and his officers tortured them into confessing to crimes ranging from armed robbery to murder. Allegations persisted until the 1990s at police stations on the city's South and West sides.

Dozens of lives completely ruined forever.   There is no restitution great enough to cover this kind of offense of power.    What exactly did Burge get after his trial?

Burge is serving a 4 1/2 -year sentence in federal prison following his conviction last year of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying in a civil suit when he said he'd never witnessed or participated in the torture of suspects.

Please note that Burge is NOT in jail for torturing, or framing suspects... he's in jail for lying about it in a civil lawsuit.  The Wikipedia page for Jon Burge is now enormous, but we're talking about a 62 year old man, who can never give back what he took from these people, all because he had a badge, and a lack of proper checks and balances.   The system is weighed against you, judges work with police, and not against them, as the burden or proof would imply they should, this is the source of the problems with our system.   Judges, prosecutors and police are all on the same team against you.   If one cop wants to make up a story and claim you did something egregious, you have little hope of success without the most expensive of lawyers.   Police officers are even allowed to break Illinois state laws whenever they want to without fear of prosecution... I see no other way that police in Illinois openly carry firearms when it is a felony to do so in that state with NO EXCEPTIONS, not even for law enforcement.   Even if there was an exception, I would challenge the law then violates the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.   It is mind boggling that Illinois has not yet been properly legally challenged yet.  

Law Enforcement is not entertainment: Scared Straight edition

As I watched the A&E copumentary "Beyond Scared Straight" my issues with these shows continued to come up.   These are kids that are trying to be independent in dangerous areas who are trying to figure out how to survive in life... and they're doing it wrong.   Their parents are either incapable, or unwilling to take the appropriate steps to guide them and are now at the end of their ropes, so they reach out to this program.  

Here is the crux of my problems... while in the "care" of law enforcement, specially selected prisoners, and prison officials these 13 through 16 year olds are assaulted, and battered relentlessly.   I'm not saying these kids aren't obnoxious, and in need of some type of help... what I'm saying is that no one should be assaulted by Law Enforcement, or Prison workers.   One large, male prison guard told a girl, "I don't care if you're a girl, I can and will fold you as easily as paper."   Similar threats are made constantly through the whole program.   Prisoners yell at another girl that they will gang rape her, and this is allowed, seemingly encouraged by the guards.  When a few of the kids didn't hear or understand a command, the guards slammed them against the wall, or shove them around.     

You're going to hear me say "If this was at a bar" a lot today, because most bars today, are zero tolerance zones for everything from most patrons, and law enforcement.   So if this were a bar, and a guy came in and told a girl relentlessly shouting how he would fold her, I guarantee he would be dealt with promptly either by patrons, or the police would come and haul him off for assault.   If this were a bar, and a group of guys told a girl if she neared the pool tables that she would be gang raped, I guarantee those guys would be dealt with in the same fashion.

Why are LEO's able to commit crimes on TV, and no one follows up and has them prosecuted?   The easy answer is that the general populace is so brainwashed that they believe anyone in a uniform can hurt them and there's nothing wrong with that.   This viewpoint is wrong from a moral, legal, and ethical viewpoint, so why is it accepted?

What is worse, why is A&E allowed to exploit the traumatizing of children for entertainment purposes?  I believe the actions of all involved are immoral and unethical.  This shows how prevalent the anti-liberty movement has become.   People must in mass claim that the rights of those children were temporarily and contractually denied by action of their parents.  

Do the kids need help?  Yes!  absolutely!   Do they need to be assaulted and battered?   My answer will always be no.  

Interesting Nugget I found